Cost-benefit analysis erases the moral remainders that technology standards preserve

Evidence

Technologybased standards continue to carry vastly different expressive connotations than costbenefi t analysis— connotations that are far more resonant with the ethical demand laid out in chapter 7. The determination by Congress that an environmental, health, or safety goal is suffi ciently important that only society’s collective “best” efforts will suffi ce opens an inevitable and lamentable gap between statutory aspiration and regulatory achievement. Accordingly, those harms that are not prevented under a bestavailabletechnology standard serve as moral remainders, signifying a collective need to seek ways of doing “better” in the future, of further protecting life and lowering environmental impact. Under costbenefi t analysis, those harms that are not avoided simply represent the “right,” the “effi cient,” or the “optimal” level of harm. Indeed, precisely because it purports to account for all relevant consequences, costbenefi t analysis must round to zero the moral remainders of risk regulation, leaving nothing further to signify a societal need for continuing vigilance. — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 578

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘moral remainders’ concept links directly to the polyad themes — ecological accountability and what regulation signifies beyond efficiency — bridging Legal Systems’ values focus with Eco-Justice critique. — connects to: Cost-benefit analysis’s appearance of rationality masks its insensitivity to systemic, long-term context — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 16; Cost-benefit analysis causes the very distortions it claims to prevent — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 237; Cost-benefit analysis narrows the questions environmental law can ask — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 317 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Sacred values resist cost-benefit correction unlike ordinary preferences #expands (0.82) — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor, 4
• Sacred values engage deontic rule processing, not utilitarian cost-benefit calculation #expands (0.80) — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 89
• Defending sacred values defies material cost-benefit prediction across decision contexts. #expands (0.78) — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor, 22
• Technological rule substitutes causality for choice and effaces the Other #complicates (0.75) — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 623
• Morality evolved as a propensity for fair cost-benefit sharing among cooperators. #contradicts (0.74) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 266